What's wrong with Creationists?

[Strel]

Some quotes that I think can shed some light on this subject.

“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe”

“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”

We are the product of 4.5 billion years of fortuitous, slow biological evolution. There is no reason to think that the evolutionary process has stopped. Man is a transitional animal. He is not the climax of creation.

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.

Dr. Carl Sagan quotes (American Astronomer, Writer and Scientist, 1934-1996)


I think it is the last quote above that really gets Creationists' knickers in a twist.

[Ethos]

Belief in Creationism speaks to the infallibility of the Bible and, by extension, the infallibility of God. If each link is not maintained, each will fall, and God is diminished.

Any mechanism that challenges Creation myth directly challenges God. This is why there is an attack on evolution and a myriad of other scientific concepts.

You may notice there is very little objection from Creationists to receiving a MRI for medical treatment. The assault is necessarily selective.

Ethos

[Strel]

Belief in Creationism speaks to the infallibility of the Bible and, by extension, the infallibility of God. If each link is not maintained, each will fall, and God is diminished.

Any mechanism that challenges Creation myth directly challenges God. This is why there is an attack on evolution and a myriad of other scientific concepts.

You may notice there is very little objection from Creationists to receiving a MRI for medical treatment. The assault is necessarily selective.

Ethos


It would be nice to hear from an ex-Creationist. I'm interested in understanding the psychology behind all this stuff.

[steveksux]

Belief in Creationism speaks to the infallibility of the Bible and, by extension, the infallibility of God. If each link is not maintained, each will fall, and God is diminished. Oddly enough, that's a stupid, and often disproved line of reasoning. The Bible survived finding out the Earth is not flat, that the Earth is not the center of the universe, that Black people are not inferior to White people. All things which were at one time or another claimed to be proven by the Bible. Its such a non-issue that its amazing to me why the claimor over this one particular issue. The Church has changed doctrine over the years, with no ill effects, given way to scientific proof that all the above were misinterpretations of the Bible, which remains infallable. This is but one more milestone in Man's quest to understand the process by which God set the universe up to work.

Randy

[steveksux]

It would be nice to hear from an ex-Creationist. I'm interested in understanding the psychology behind all this stuff.They're all in Hell, apparently. If you listen really close you can hear their tormented screams.... ;)

Randy

[Ethos]

Oddly enough, that's a stupid, and often disproved line of reasoning. The Bible survived finding out the Earth is not flat, that the Earth is not the center of the universe, that Black people are not inferior to White people. All things which were at one time or another claimed to be proven by the Bible. Its such a non-issue that its amazing to me why the claimor over this one particular issue. The Church has changed doctrine over the years, with no ill effects, given way to scientific proof that all the above were misinterpretations of the Bible, which remains infallable. This is but one more milestone in Man's quest to understand the process by which God set the universe up to work.

Randy

This is why "apologetics" was established. I invite you to show me where the Bible declares the Earth is flat.

Ethos

[Strel]

I would suspect that Creationist children come home with report cards that include comments like "needs a more structured environment".

[Ethos]

I would suspect that Creationist children come home with report cards that include comments like "needs a more structured environment".

In truth children make very poor literalists. One of their strengths.

Ethos

[steveksux]

This is why "apologetics" was established. I invite you to show me where the Bible declares the Earth is flat.

EthosFirst show me where the bible says the earth is the center of the universe... ;)

I'm discussing historical claims based on misinterpretations of the bible proven false by science. THe point is none of those assertions are really in the Bible.

Randy

[Strel]

In truth children make very poor literalists. One of their strengths.

Ethos

Children in general, yes. But do Creationist children ever develop critical thinking skills?

[Ethos]

First show me where the bible says the earth is the center of the universe... ;)

I'm discussing historical claims based on misinterpretations of the bible proven false by science. THe point is none of those assertions are really in the Bible.

Randy

Yes, however the creation myth is in the Bible, and its implications for mutliple scientific disciplines are very real. At any point in discovery we are forced to choose between a defense of misinterpretation and a defense of Truth. In the case of evolutionary theory and life origin, the fundamentalist defense is Truth because Genesis is simply not vague enough to justify a capitulation based on interpretation or translation.

Ethos

[Ethos]

Children in general, yes. But do Creationist children ever develop critical thinking skills?

Some do, no doubt. I would follow your line of thinking that the majority most likely have at least a moderate level of deficiency in that regard, however lacking any real research on the question I am hesitant to make unsupported assumptions.

Ethos

[Ethos]

This may be a pertinent addition:


While as anthropologists we're discouraged from talking about human beings in any sort of universal terms, it seems to me that the human being is indeed at least one thing, and that's self centered. And when I say self centered I'm not referring to individual "greediness", I'm referring to a type of utter fixation with our own species. And truly, anthropologists represent perhaps the epitome of this fixation - we have dedicated our ourselves to studying humanity in all of its various dimensions. A survey of theologies from around the world will often tell you little about the gods or the rest of the world and a whole lot about the nature of humanity, which is often regarded as the pinnacle of creation.

It's not a crime, it's just the way we are. We do, in fact, tend to regard ourselves as special in the grand scheme of the world.

So why is it a suprise to anyone that evolutionary theory would be met with more resistence than the law of gravity, the theory of relativity or the heliocentric model of the solar system? Geology, astronomy, physics and the like don't have the same sorts of implications for people's sense of self as does biology. For a species used to regarding itself incredibly highly, accepting that we're really not that different from any other creature is a very troublesome and even counter-intuitive idea.


http://anthropology.net/user/kelly_hale/blog/2006/03/15/an_anthropology_of_creationism

Ethos

[steveksux]

Yes, however the creation myth is in the Bible, and its implications for mutliple scientific disciplines are very real. At any point in discovery we are forced to choose between a defense of misinterpretation and a defense of Truth. In the case of evolutionary theory and life origin, the fundamentalist defense is Truth because Genesis is simply not vague enough to justify a capitulation based on interpretation or translation.

EthosBut taking the creation myth and a 6 day creation week literally or figuratively IS a matter of (mis)interpretation, and the crux of the matter. at hand.

I see your point that the creation myth is spelled out pretty explicitely, rather than the vague sort of verses used to prop up the center of the universe stuff in the past, or even those used against homosexuality today.

Randy

[Ethos]

But taking the creation myth and a 6 day creation week literally or figuratively IS a matter of (mis)interpretation, and the crux of the matter. at hand.

Randy

Absolutely, which brings us back to Truth vs Interpretation. At the moment we are seeing the Truth phase. It could be argued that the eventual result of this belief will follow others and end in Interpretation, however I believe there is far too much investment in pseudo-scientific presentations (such as Intelligent Design) to allow this conversion to take place on a large scale for quite some time.

Ethos

[neo of the mind]

This is why "apologetics" was established. I invite you to show me where the Bible declares the Earth is flat.

Ethos

It doesn't but the misinterpretation of figures of speech such as below was the problem and where some get the flat earth misconception.

Rev 7:1
7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
KJV

Job 38:13

13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
KJV

[heel31ok]

Some quotes that I think can shed some light on this subject.

“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe”

“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”

We are the product of 4.5 billion years of fortuitous, slow biological evolution. There is no reason to think that the evolutionary process has stopped. Man is a transitional animal. He is not the climax of creation.

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.

Dr. Carl Sagan quotes (American Astronomer, Writer and Scientist, 1934-1996)


I think it is the last quote above that really gets Creationists' knickers in a twist.
and yet if you asked today I am quite sure he would have totally different view. Because now he has a totally different view.

[steveksux]

Absolutely, which brings us back to Truth vs Interpretation. At the moment we are seeing the Truth phase. It could be argued that the eventual result of this belief will follow others and end in Interpretation, however I believe there is far too much investment in pseudo-scientific presentations (such as Intelligent Design) to allow this conversion to take place on a large scale for quite some time.

EthosAnd the nature of the evidence is more circumstantial as well. I think you are right on the timeframe. There are still Flat Earthers around coexisting with pictures of earth from space, resting quite comfortably in their ignorance. How much more difficult will it be to overcome this much more personal concept (more emotional attachment to what WE are as as species compared to the earth being round or flat) on the basis of much less obvious and direct evidence.

Randy

[steveksux]

It doesn't but the misinterpretation of figures of speech such as below was the problem and where some get the flat earth misconception.

Rev 7:1
7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
KJV

Job 38:13

13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
KJVYet you stake your disbelief of evolution on the Bible being the literal word of God... SO which is it? Literally true, or not? If the 4 corners of the earth is not literally true, why must Genesis be literally true?

Randy

[neo of the mind]

Yet you stake your disbelief of evolution on the Bible being the literal word of God... SO which is it? Literally true, or not? If the 4 corners of the earth is not literally true, why must Genesis be literally true?

Randy

I think we have a terminology issue here. The Bible is the word of God. The languages that were translated into English, just like English, have idioms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom

On another post, I gave a direct link to E.W. Bulinger's work on "figures of speech" in the Bible.

So, the Bible has areas that are meant to be read literal and other areas that are meant to be read as figurative.

There are parts of Genesis that have figures of speech in them. The one issue, in regards to our topic is that even figuratively reading the Genesis account, one can only come to the conclusion that it states that God created life in groups and in a certain order.

So in the Bible, it states that life first was formed on land in plant life, then the sea, then higher lifeforms on the land. Where Evolution contradicts this order and has sea life as the beginning. Or am I wrong on that?

[brainpan]

No matter how much you qualify Randy's challenge, the question remains. Why should the creation account be taken literally?

[green lantern]

Some quotes that I think can shed some light on this subject.

“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe”

“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”

We are the product of 4.5 billion years of fortuitous, slow biological evolution. There is no reason to think that the evolutionary process has stopped. Man is a transitional animal. He is not the climax of creation.

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.

Dr. Carl Sagan quotes (American Astronomer, Writer and Scientist, 1934-1996)


I think it is the last quote above that really gets Creationists' knickers in a twist.
short answer to the original 'what is wrong with creationists'....nothing.

[neo of the mind]

Children in general, yes. But do Creationist children ever develop critical thinking skills?

Yes. You are acting like everything around us hinges on the evolutionary theory for our daily survival. Contrary to popular opinion, it is not the case and only a small percentage of people around the world perform functions that require this knowledge or belief.

So, to say that children that are raised with the belief of creationalism don't develop critical thinking skills is absurd.

[neo of the mind]

No matter how much you qualify Randy's challenge, the question remains. Why should the creation account be taken literally?


ok, I will stop belaboring the same point I have made even though it is valid to the question.

I believe all scripture conveys literal truth and accurately details what God did from the beginning of the narrative to the promise of eternity.

John 10:23-42

23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.

24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.

25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

30 I and my Father are one.

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken ;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,

40 And went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode.

41 And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true.

42 And many believed on him there.
KJV

[neo of the mind]

and yet if you asked today I am quite sure he would have totally different view. Because now he has a totally different view.

indeed.


"Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people."


His quote doesn't even make sense. What do you mean, "Who are we?" as he says how insignificant we are COMPARED TO WHAT? Is there some significant planet near a better star in a prominent galaxy at the published center of the universe that has life on it that he was aware of?

As of this time, the only thing that anyone can rightfully say is that we are indeed on a special planet that is near a special star in a special galaxy in a special spot in the universe.

[steveksux]

indeed.


"Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people."


His quote doesn't even make sense. What do you mean, "Who are we?" as he says how insignificant we are COMPARED TO WHAT? Is there some significant planet near a better star in a prominent galaxy at the published center of the universe that has life on it that he was aware of?

As of this time, the only thing that anyone can rightfully say is that we are indeed on a special planet that is near a special star in a special galaxy in a special spot in the universe.It is only special because we are on it, and we are the ones determining what is special. ;) What he's saying is how insignificant we are on a cosmic scale. The planet could be wiped out and would not be noticable to the rest of the universe.

Randy

[FlyingGuineapig]

Yes. You are acting like everything around us hinges on the evolutionary theory for our daily survival. Contrary to popular opinion, it is not the case and only a small percentage of people around the world perform functions that require this knowledge or belief.

So, to say that children that are raised with the belief of creationalism don't develop critical thinking skills is absurd.

There's a certain logic to this statement - only a small percentage of the population need critical thinking skills and knowledge, and if creationists can't make the cut, they can still find lesser roles in society. "Well, the world needs ditchdiggers too", as the quote from Caddyshack goes.

It's a shame that they can't learn to live honest lives, like the Amish, but instead leech off a society which they hate and lie about.

[neo of the mind]

It is only special because we are on it, and we are the ones determining what is special. ;) What he's saying is how insignificant we are on a cosmic scale. The planet could be wiped out and would not be noticable to the rest of the universe.

Randy


"It's only special because we are on it" - exactly, as of this time, we are the only life in the universe that can be stated is a fact.

"and we are the ones determining what is special." - exactly, as of this time, humans are the only life on our planet and in the universe that has the capacity to determine this, which can be stated as a fact.

"noticeable to the rest of the universe". - Only living things can notice anything. Sagans point is moot and nothing enlightened.

We are special and since he is dead, he knows this now.

[neo of the mind]

There's a certain logic to this statement - only a small percentage of the population need critical thinking skills and knowledge, and if creationists can't make the cut, they can still find lesser roles in society. "Well, the world needs ditchdiggers too", as the quote from Caddyshack goes.

It's a shame that they can't learn to live honest lives, like the Amish, but instead leech off a society which they hate and lie about.

I think you are overstating your case by a huge margin and have twisted my words. I said knowledge and belief OF EVOLUTION, what I said does not imply knowledge in general. Your attempts at deprecation add nothing substantial to this debate.

[steveksux]

I think we have a terminology issue here. The Bible is the word of God. The languages that were translated into English, just like English, have idioms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom

On another post, I gave a direct link to E.W. Bulinger's work on "figures of speech" in the Bible.

So, the Bible has areas that are meant to be read literal and other areas that are meant to be read as figurative.And its a judgement call as to which areas are literal, figurative, or allegory. The objection to evolution simply evaporates if you stop taking Genesis as a literal passage. Which is why the vast majority of the Christian denominations out there don't have a problem with evolution from a biblical perspective.


So in the Bible, it states that life first was formed on land in plant life, then the sea, then higher lifeforms on the land. Where Evolution contradicts this order and has sea life as the beginning. Or am I wrong on that?I'm not sure, I thought plant life was first. There wasn't much oxygen in the early atmosphere, I thought plants came first, provided the oxygen that later supported animal life. But don't quote me, I'd have to look it up to be sure.

I'd be more concerned with the order day/night stars and earth were created in. He created light, darkness, day and night on the first day. Didn't create the Sun which is responsible for the daylight around here until the fourth day. So the Genesis account is obviously wrong on that count alone. Best bet is to transfer Genesis out of the "literal" category before it sinks the whole Bible, containing falsehood like that jeopardizes the whole "Unerring" part of the "Unerring Word of God".

Randy

[neo of the mind]

And its a judgement call as to which areas are literal, figurative, or allegory. The objection to evolution simply evaporates if you stop taking Genesis as a literal passage. Which is why the vast majority of the Christian denominations out there don't have a problem with evolution from a biblical perspective.

I'm not sure, I thought plant life was first. There wasn't much oxygen in the early atmosphere, I thought plants came first, provided the oxygen that later supported animal life. But don't quote me, I'd have to look it up to be sure.

I'd be more concerned with the order day/night stars and earth were created in. He created light, darkness, day and night on the first day. Didn't create the Sun which is responsible for the daylight around here until the fourth day. So the Genesis account is obviously wrong on that count alone. Best bet is to transfer Genesis out of the "literal" category before it sinks the whole Bible, containing falsehood like that jeopardizes the whole "Unerring" part of the "Unerring Word of God".

Randy

"The objection to evolution simply evaporates if you stop taking Genesis as a literal passage." - and that's why I said that even if you took it figurative as in the words used, such as "created" and "day", you are still left with the structure of the "creation" and the order of events.

There must be a reconciliation, you can't dump the first chapters of Genesis as not being true and say the rest of the books, including the rest of the chapters of Genesis as being true.

[burntgorilla]

"The objection to evolution simply evaporates if you stop taking Genesis as a literal passage." - and that's why I said that even if you took it figurative as in the words used, such as "created" and "day", you are still left with the structure of the "creation" and the order of events.

There must be a reconciliation, you can't dump the first chapters of Genesis as not being true and say the rest of the books, including the rest of the chapters of Genesis as being true.

But that too could be taken figuratively. Really, at its most basic level you could just take it to mean that God created the world. Perhaps its an allegory of how the Universe formed after the Big Bang? Light from the first stars, the formation of Earth and the lighting of our own star, the gradual development of life. I think it could be interpreted like that.


Anyway, in answer to the question, they cannot accept that their opinion could be false, and as such cannot enter into a debate.

[neo of the mind]

But that too could be taken figuratively. Really, at its most basic level you could just take it to mean that God created the world. Perhaps its an allegory of how the Universe formed after the Big Bang? Light from the first stars, the formation of Earth and the lighting of our own star, the gradual development of life. I think it could be interpreted like that.


Anyway, in answer to the question, they cannot accept that their opinion could be false, and as such cannot enter into a debate.

Could the majority of evolutionists accept that their opinion could be false and that the Bible is true? It's seems to me that you are placing a higher standard on creationists.

[Dangerrmouse]

Overturning the results of hundreds of years of science on the basis of a two thousand year old collection of writings by primitive desert dwellers can be tricky. Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence.

[FlyingGuineapig]

Could the majority of evolutionists accept that their opinion could be false and that the Bible is true? It's seems to me that you are placing a higher standard on creationists.
Science routinely handles theories being disproven and replaced - the usual example of Einstein's theory of relativity surplanted Newton's law of gravitation.

[neo of the mind]

Overturning the results of hundreds of years of science on the basis of a two thousand year old collection of writings by primitive desert dwellers can be tricky. Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence.

Notwithstanding your choice of words to discredit people in the past, It should be obvious to point out the fact that evolution did not come into "acceptance" until the early 1900s, so pooh poohing 2000 year old writings and the thousands of years of accumulative knowledge and understanding is specious in this regard.

[burntgorilla]

Could the majority of evolutionists accept that their opinion could be false and that the Bible is true? It's seems to me that you are placing a higher standard on creationists.

If it were proven, of course. Lots of scientific theories have been debunked over the ages. It would cause a large shift in science, since if the Bible were literally true it would contradict a large amount of what we know now, but it could still happen. Science doesn't have to rely on a basic central opinion being true. If it turns out to be false, science adapts.

[neo of the mind]

Science routinely handles theories being disproven and replaced - the usual example of Einstein's theory of relativity surplanted Newton's law of gravitation.

Understood and agreed but your not arguing apples to apples. The statement was made that people that believe the Bible to be truth could just consider themselves wrong is the same as evolutionists considering that their specific theory could be false and just replaced with a new one. What would be comparable would be to say that, could the majority of evolutionists accept that creationism is correct, which would have the side effect of having to accept a creator along with it.

[::Major_Baker::]

what's wrong with creationists?
They're Dullards.

[sub_zer0]

Some quotes that I think can shed some light on this subject.

“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe”

No, its based on FAITH.

“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”

We are the product of 4.5 billion years of fortuitous, slow biological evolution. There is no reason to think that the evolutionary process has stopped. Man is a transitional animal. He is not the climax of creation.

There is no reason to believe that the slow biological process of evolution ever began.

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.

Dr. Carl Sagan quotes (American Astronomer, Writer and Scientist, 1934-1996)

Christians believe, we live on a privelaged planet we should take care of. Not fogotten but loved.

I think it is the last quote above that really gets Creationists' knickers in a twist.

That last one does get me, because it is a sad existence if you are forgotten.

[Strel]

and yet if you asked today I am quite sure he would have totally different view. Because now he has a totally different view.

Prove it.

Put up or shut up.

[Strel]

Yes. You are acting like everything around us hinges on the evolutionary theory for our daily survival. Contrary to popular opinion, it is not the case and only a small percentage of people around the world perform functions that require this knowledge or belief.

So, to say that children that are raised with the belief of creationalism don't develop critical thinking skills is absurd.


I don't think so, when I see them failing to exhibit these skills as adults, and even on this board this week.

[Strel]

No, its based on FAITH.

Faith that blinds one to reality is not faith. It is willful ignorance. When you persist in it, you do a disservice to yourself. When you broadcast it, you tell a lie to the world. Creationism is a lie.

There is no reason to believe that the slow biological process of evolution ever began.

This has got to be one of the dumbest things said in this debate. Your own existence is evidence that the processes of evolution began and continued (and indeed, still do).

Christians believe, we live on a privelaged planet we should take care of. Not fogotten but loved.

I'd be careful if I were you, claiming to speak for all Christians. How do you know you aren't pissing Jesus off with such hubris?

That last one does get me, because it is a sad existence if you are forgotten.

That is a matter of one's attitude. I don't need to believe in fairy tales to find meaning in my life. I pity those that do.

[neo of the mind]

I don't think so, when I see them failing to exhibit these skills as adults, and even on this board this week.


Your making this basis on 3 people in a political forum. I would consider a lot of educated people to have a lack of critical thinking skills due to the fact that they spend a lot of time and money on gaining an education, with the end result that they are employed at starbucks.

[FlyingGuineapig]

Understood and agreed but your not arguing apples to apples. The statement was made that people that believe the Bible to be truth could just consider themselves wrong is the same as evolutionists considering that their specific theory could be false and just replaced with a new one. What would be comparable would be to say that, could the majority of evolutionists accept that creationism is correct, which would have the side effect of having to accept a creator along with it.
Many (if not most) evolutionists also believe in a Creator - with evolution being the process used for creation. This has already been discussed numerous times in these various threads.

Offhand, Linnaeus's Fixity of Species (late 1700s) was the last commonly accepted theory which had God directly creating a fixed number of species, in an unchangeable form. Linnaeus himself even wound up abandoning it, and looking into something called hyridization (which had some similarities to early thoughts on evolution). As a side note, Linnaeus's classification scheme is still used today in biology - just because one of this theories was replaced doesn't mean the rest of his work was wrong (at least not to science).

So science is no stranger to creationists theories. But they didn't work, they've been abandoned, and moved on. Not to say that they couldn't be resurrected if evidence indicates otherwise, but frankly, even the few creationist scientists at AiG and whatnot don't seem very interested in actually doing research, and what little has been done doesn't seem to have been done very well (again, see the other threads on Humphries).

[burntgorilla]

Understood and agreed but your not arguing apples to apples. The statement was made that people that believe the Bible to be truth could just consider themselves wrong is the same as evolutionists considering that their specific theory could be false and just replaced with a new one. What would be comparable would be to say that, could the majority of evolutionists accept that creationism is correct, which would have the side effect of having to accept a creator along with it.

Who says evolutionists don't believe in a creator? They're not mutually exclusive.

But would you not agree that evolution being proved correct would cause more of a seismic shift for Bible literalists than creationism being proved correct would for scientists? Actually, I doubt whether any amount of proof will ever be enough for creationists.

[mataj]

No, its based on FAITH.Do you know the difference between faith and facts, by any chance?

There is no reason to believe that the slow biological process of evolution ever began.Indeed not. Such things are not supposed to be believed into, but empirically verified.

Christians believe, we live on a privelaged planet we should take care of. Not fogotten but loved.OUCH! That's a bad belief. That woman, you know, Mother Nature , is a psychopat. Her love and attention certainly isn't something you'd wish for.

[Strel]

Your making this basis on 3 people in a political forum.

No, I'm making this determination on the basis of the hundreds of Creationists with which I have debated, and from reading their own material.

I would consider a lot of educated people to have a lack of critical thinking skills due to the fact that they spend a lot of time and money on gaining an education, with the end result that they are employed at starbucks.

True enough. Perhaps some Creationists have these skills, and suspend them when they are thinking about science. :lol:

[neo of the mind]

Who says evolutionists don't believe in a creator? They're not mutually exclusive.

But would you not agree that evolution being proved correct would cause more of a seismic shift for Bible literalists than creationism being proved correct would for scientists? Actually, I doubt whether any amount of proof will ever be enough for creationists.

I could be wrong, but for some reason, I have it in my head that most Scientists that have evolution as the backbone of their field are Atheists.
Maybe that's a misconception, but if it's not, then it would be more of a seismic shift to them, then would it be for creationists. My belief in God would not disapear but their disbelief would have to.

[Strel]

I could be wrong, but for some reason, I have it in my head that most Scientists that have evolution as the backbone of their field are Atheists.

"for some reason"

You have been taught this. It is a lie.

Maybe that's a misconception, but if it's not, then it would be more of a seismic shift to them, then would it be for creationists. My belief in God would not disapear but their disbelief would have to.

Check this out:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

Most scientists that I knew growing up, including my parents, went to church every Sunday.

You probably don't see a lot of scientists in fundamentalist religion though...I dare you to ask me why. ;)

[neo of the mind]

No, I'm making this determination on the basis of the hundreds of Creationists with which I have debated, and from reading their own material.



True enough. Perhaps some Creationists have these skills, and suspend them when they are thinking about science. :lol:


I would say that the majority of people I have debated that adhered to evolution were atheists and had an aggressive hatred towards the Bible and everyone that adheres to it.

Well, so far these debates have had to deal with the science of evolutionary theory. When we discuss other areas of science, which rarely occurs in these debates, then you can come to the determination if creationists suspend critical thinking to science in general.

[burntgorilla]

I could be wrong, but for some reason, I have it in my head that most Scientists that have evolution as the backbone of their field are Atheists.

Not really. I'm sure some are, but many see God as the starter of evolution. Evolution doesn't mean that there is no creator.

Maybe that's a misconception, but if it's not, then it would be more of a seismic shift to them, then would it be for creationists. My belief in God would not disapear but their disbelief would have to.

Well, creationists believe in creationism because they believe the Bible to be literally true. If creationism is shown to be false, then it logically follows that the Bible is not literally true. While most Christians dealt with this ages ago, I think it would be a hell of a shift. If the Genesis story isn't true, who's to say the Gospels aren't true?

[Meek Heir]

as of this time, we are the only life in the universe that can be stated is a fact.

as of this time, humans are the only life on our planet and in the universe that has the capacity to determine this, which can be stated as a fact.

Only living things can notice anything. Sagans point is moot and nothing enlightened.

You can state anything you want as fact. That doesn't make it one. But since you apparently can prove that there is no other life in the universe, I guess you must have some magic omipresence that recieves signals from the entire galaxy faster then the speed of light.

And I'm curious, does "we" include all the other life on this planet? or did you forget about them at the same time you forgot that you have no knowledge of anything outside of this galaxy, and don't know much about this one either.

[neo of the mind]

Well, creationists believe in creationism because they believe the Bible to be literally true. If creationism is shown to be false, then it logically follows that the Bible is not literally true. While most Christians dealt with this ages ago, I think it would be a hell of a shift. If the Genesis story isn't true, who's to say the Gospels aren't true?

Your deleting the interpretation factor in this thought. If it turns out that creationists are proven wrong about macro evolution it will just cause a second look at the traditional interpretation of the Genesis account.

I believe Steveksux (Randy) has already posted some insightful comments on this very point.

[FlyingGuineapig]

When we discuss other areas of science, which rarely occurs in these debates, then you can come to the determination if creationists suspend critical thinking to science in general.
Well, there's also the suspension of critical thinking when it comes to radioactive decay (physics & chem), the speed of light (physics), plate tectonics, archeology with dates > 4000BC (and really, most anything after 2000BC), cosmology, etc.

[neo of the mind]

You can state anything you want as fact. That doesn't make it one. But since you apparently can prove that there is no other life in the universe, I guess you must have some magic omipresence that recieves signals from the entire galaxy faster then the speed of light.

And I'm curious, does "we" include all the other life on this planet? or did you forget about them at the same time you forgot that you have no knowledge of anything outside of this galaxy, and don't know much about this one either.

It's Sagan's quote, so the responsibility was with him to back up his comments, not me. Is it not a fact that the earth is a special planet and positioned in a special place? If it were not special and "significant", then we would not be here to post on an electronic forum now would we.

[burntgorilla]

Your deleting the interpretation factor in this thought. If it turns out that creationists are proven wrong about macro evolution it will just cause a second look at the traditional interpretation of the Genesis account.

I believe Steveksux (Randy) has already posted some insightful comments on this very point.

Well, if creationists could then just decide that it's not to be taken literally (personally, I find the whole area of deciding what's literal and what's not rather odd), then why don't they do that now? It fits in with the facts and is much more logical. It doesn't put them at odds with half of scientific discoveries.

[neo of the mind]

Well, there's also the suspension of critical thinking when it comes to radioactive decay (physics & chem), the speed of light (physics), plate tectonics, archeology with dates > 4000BC (and really, most anything after 2000BC), cosmology, etc.

I adhere to the Gap Theory which doesn't contradict the Bible, so none of that being true, which it is(radioactive dating not being proven 100% due to variation in results, but close enough), contradicts anything to me.

[neo of the mind]

Well, if creationists could then just decide that it's not to be taken literally (personally, I find the whole area of deciding what's literal and what's not rather odd), then why don't they do that now? It fits in with the facts and is much more logical. It doesn't put them at odds with half of scientific discoveries.

Well, I can't help why God chose for it to be written that way. Figures of speech play an important role in language and most of the time convey more truth and give more impact to the individual reader then the literal equivalent.

[Ethos]

It's Sagan's quote, so the responsibility was with him to back up his comments, not me. Is it not a fact that the earth is a special planet and positioned in a special place? If it were not special and "significant", then we would not be here to post on an electronic forum now would we.

No it is not a fact. Earth and humanity are special to you, however there is nothing particularly uncommon about our solar system and its place in our galaxy relative to the remaining universe.

Ethos

[Dangerrmouse]

A light hearted insight to our situation.

http://www.newearth.demon.co.uk/poems/lyric226.htm

"Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour.
It's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
The sun that is the source of all our power.
Now the sun, and you and me, and all the stars that we can see,
Are moving at a million miles a day,
In the outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
Of a galaxy we call the Milky Way."


There's more...

[FlyingGuineapig]

I adhere to the Gap Theory which doesn't contradict the Bible, so none of that being true, which it is(radioactive dating not being proven 100% due to variation in results, but close enough), contradicts anything to me.
OK - my apologies then for lumping Gap Theory in with YECs. (is the Gap Theory the one with "Lucifer's earth" and such? I had seen something about it on AiG or ChristianAnswers, and they seemed rather opposed to it - but I didn't study the differences).

[neo of the mind]

No it is not a fact. Earth and humanity are special to you, however there is nothing particularly uncommon about our solar system and its place in our galaxy relative to the remaining universe.

Ethos

Oh really? I guess I will have to show some documentation on this. I didn't think that would be needed, with all the scientists on this forum. While I am looking maybe somebody else could give documentation of another planet anywhere that matches earth.

[neo of the mind]

A light hearted insight to our situation.

http://www.newearth.demon.co.uk/poems/lyric226.htm

"Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour.
It's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
The sun that is the source of all our power.
Now the sun, and you and me, and all the stars that we can see,
Are moving at a million miles a day,
In the outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
Of a galaxy we call the Milky Way."


There's more...

Nice poem, thanks for the break. Is the universe expanding at the speed of light? Didn't know that to be the case. Anyhoo, thanks again.

quick link I looked up. Some of the related questions are also interesting. I don't undertand the one that talks about things going faster than the speed of light as long as they "don't see each other". That's kind of goofy sounding, but hey, I only play a person in a forum that plays an astronomer on tv. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=346

[JoeR]

If it were not special and "significant", then we would not be here to post on an electronic forum now would we.

All we are are slightly smarter apes with technology.

[FlyingGuineapig]

Oh really? I guess I will have to show some documentation on this. I didn't think that would be needed, with all the scientists on this forum. While I am looking maybe somebody else could give documentation of another planet anywhere that matches earth.
Offhand, all the newly discovered extrasolar planets are going to need to be pretty massive, since they're detected by causing their stars to wobble. I don't think we've got a way to detect planets that match the Earth.

[Ethos]

Oh really? I guess I will have to show some documentation on this. I didn't think that would be needed, with all the scientists on this forum. While I am looking maybe somebody else could give documentation of another planet anywhere that matches earth.

You still refuse to understand the subjective nature of "special" as you are utilizing the term. Venus matches Earth, as does Mars. Both contain the same elements and fundamental planetary characteristics, though both maintain vastly different atmospheric qualities which prevent (known) life from development. If you wish to remain personally invested in the terminology you've employed, one could easily claim Mars is very "special" while challenging you to find another planet that matches it.

An earlier quote I placed on this thread applies to this type of mentality.


While as anthropologists we're discouraged from talking about human beings in any sort of universal terms, it seems to me that the human being is indeed at least one thing, and that's self centered. And when I say self centered I'm not referring to individual "greediness", I'm referring to a type of utter fixation with our own species. And truly, anthropologists represent perhaps the epitome of this fixation - we have dedicated our ourselves to studying humanity in all of its various dimensions. A survey of theologies from around the world will often tell you little about the gods or the rest of the world and a whole lot about the nature of humanity, which is often regarded as the pinnacle of creation.

It's not a crime, it's just the way we are. We do, in fact, tend to regard ourselves as special in the grand scheme of the world.

So why is it a suprise to anyone that evolutionary theory would be met with more resistence than the law of gravity, the theory of relativity or the heliocentric model of the solar system? Geology, astronomy, physics and the like don't have the same sorts of implications for people's sense of self as does biology. For a species used to regarding itself incredibly highly, accepting that we're really not that different from any other creature is a very troublesome and even counter-intuitive idea.


Ethos

[neo of the mind]

You still refuse to understand the subjective nature of "special" as you are utilizing the term. Venus matches Earth, as does Mars. Both contain the same elements and fundamental planetary characteristics, though both maintain vastly different atmospheric qualities which prevent (known) life from development. If you wish to remain personally invested in the terminology you've employed, one could easily claim Mars is very "special" while challenging you to find another planet that matches it.

An earlier quote I placed on this thread applies to this type of mentality.
Ethos

This isn't something subjective!

The specialness I am referring to is the LOCATION of our planet, for without a special LOCATION around a SPECIAL star, could we have a SPECIAL planet that supports Life.

I don't know what type of mentality your trying to place on me, which I assume is negative, but I think your missing my point. In order for our planet to have life, it must be a certain distance away from a certain type of star. It has to be a certain size and have a certain revolution around it's axis and around the stars axis. If this is NOT true, then tell me why.

[steveksux]

I would say that the majority of people I have debated that adhered to evolution were atheists and had an aggressive hatred towards the Bible and everyone that adheres to it.Only annoyance at creationists who misinterpret the Bible, giving all Christians a bad name, including many Christian scientists who believe in God AND evolution.

Well, so far these debates have had to deal with the science of evolutionary theory. When we discuss other areas of science, which rarely occurs in these debates, then you can come to the determination if creationists suspend critical thinking to science in general.Other areas come up quite frequently. Just look at Heel's spittle filled tirades about all sorts of areas of science that prove old earth and evolution. Its all a plot to discredit GOD! Evolution is intricately related and verified by a wide range of scientific disciplines. They must all be wrong for evolution to be wrong.

Randy

[Dangerrmouse]

This isn't something subjective!

The specialness I am referring to is the LOCATION of our planet, for without a special LOCATION around a SPECIAL star, could we have a SPECIAL planet that supports Life.

I don't know what type of mentality your trying to place on me, which I assume is negative, but I think your missing my point. In order for our planet to have life, it must be a certain distance away from a certain type of star. It has to be a certain size and have a certain revolution around it's axis and around the stars axis. If this is NOT true, then tell me why.

Those criteria may need to be met for life like ours, but lifeforms based on a chemistry other than carbon are not impossible. As stars go, our star is nothing special, there are billions of them in our galaxy alone, let alone the billions and billions of other galaxies. Have you heard of the Drake equation?

[neo of the mind]

Those criteria may need to be met for life like ours, but lifeforms based on a chemistry other than carbon are not impossible. As stars go, our star is nothing special, there are billions of them in our galaxy alone, let alone the billions and billions of other galaxies. Have you heard of the Drake equation?

I meant that our star is special in that if it were at a different stage, not a yellow star, then life on our planet, with all other things equal, distance, etc. would not have been sustainable.

I recall the equation, not something that I have thought about in a long time.

Edit:
Hey, here is something that is fun. Let's see what happens when we mess with the "specialness" of our location, etc. I know it's not truly scientific, but it has some basic equations imbedded in it. http://www.arachnoid.com/gravitation/index.html

[Dangerrmouse]

Think about it. The mentality which it occurs to me may have been suggested is homocentric.

[steveksux]

Think about it. The mentality which it occurs to me may have been suggested is homocentric. :eek: I think that is an even bigger sin than believing in evolution...

Randy

[neo of the mind]

Think about it. The mentality which it occurs to me may have been suggested is homocentric.

Hey! I don't care where homosexuals congregate. :D

[Dangerrmouse]

Hey! I don't care where homosexuals congregate. :D

That one was worthy of your confederates.

[steveksux]

Of course, always to remember to add the obligatory "Not that there's anything wrong with that"....

Randy

[Ethos]

This isn't something subjective!

The specialness I am referring to is the LOCATION of our planet, for without a special LOCATION around a SPECIAL star, could we have a SPECIAL planet that supports Life.

I don't know what type of mentality your trying to place on me, which I assume is negative, but I think your missing my point. In order for our planet to have life, it must be a certain distance away from a certain type of star. It has to be a certain size and have a certain revolution around it's axis and around the stars axis. If this is NOT true, then tell me why.

It is true. It is also true that Mars is a certain size and it has a certain revolution around its axis. That Earth contains life while Mars does not (as far as we know) means nothing. Both places are "special" according to your usage of the word.

As was pointed out by Dangerrmouse, the mentality I've attributed to you is homocentrism. All of us follow this reasoning to at least some degree and it is not necessarily a negative aspect of human psychology, but it can be a very limiting frame of mind when attempting to understand alternative philosophies.

Unfortunately biocentrism, which I believe to be a much more beneficial concept, is rarely exhibited by society.

Ethos

[Lumpen Prole]

Homocentrism defines religious fundamentalists. Humans were created in the image of God; humans have complete domain over all life on Earth; we are at the center of the universe. Science has long ago disproved the fact that the Earth is at the center of anything. Observation has proved that biblical literalists just want to be the center of attention. None of it should be particularly surprising, though. It's a natural response to living and having to die. Fear makes people think and act in an irrational manner.

[Ethos]

Homocentrism defines religious fundamentalists. Humans were created in the image of God; humans have complete domain over all life on Earth; we are at the center of the universe. Science has long ago disproved the fact that the Earth is at the center of anything. Observation has proved that biblical literalists just want to be the center of attention. None of it should be particularly surprising, though. It's a natural response to living and having to die. Fear makes people think and act in an irrational manner.

I disagree. Homocentrism is not exclusive to religious fundamentalism, but it is exclusive to humanity. It is entirely rational for a human being to operate under a basic structure of self-interest that naturally translates into a general homocentric perspective. The result is less a function of fear than it is an expression of survival.

I do agree that religion harbors the inimical ability to increase and justify already over-extended homocentric behaviors and attitudes, though this observation holds true for many philosophical ideals.

Ethos

[steveksux]

As long as homocentrism is practiced in private behind closed doors I don't have a problem with it. In fact I would strongly stand up for the rights of adult homocentrics to follow their hearts where they lead them. I just don't like to be exposed to it unnecessarily.

Randy

[neo of the mind]

I know the "critical thinking" discussion was over, but I was doing some surfing and found this link. In whole, may not be anything new as far as opinion but it did have a list of "critical thinkers" that believed in a Creator.

http://home.earthlink.net/~sableghost/Creation1.html

[Strel]

I know the "critical thinking" discussion was over, but I was doing some surfing and found this link. In whole, may not be anything new as far as opinion but it did have a list of "critical thinkers" that believed in a Creator.

http://home.earthlink.net/~sableghost/Creation1.html


I don't think anyone has a problem with belief in a Creator, or at least tolerance for those that do believe. I answer that question as "undetermined" myself, but I'm one of those weird people that can be comfortable with doubt.

What IS a problem is when proven scientific facts are disputed by the dishonest, the ignorant, and the unscrupulous. Neo, you seem a smart person. I'm here to tell you that people have lied to you. Not with evil intent. but perhaps selfish in a way, and motivated by fear, as someone has already pointed out.

The truth is out there. If you have a healthy curiousity, you will discover it for yourself. Do not be satisfied with answers that rely on faith. That is the currency of charlatans.

[steveksux]

I know the "critical thinking" discussion was over, but I was doing some surfing and found this link. In whole, may not be anything new as far as opinion but it did have a list of "critical thinkers" that believed in a Creator.

http://home.earthlink.net/~sableghost/Creation1.htmlLots of critical thinkers believe in a Creator and Evolution. Like the Pope, for instance. Hard to criticize his religious bona fides....

Randy

[Lumpen Prole]

I disagree. Homocentrism is not exclusive to religious fundamentalism, but it is exclusive to humanity. It is entirely rational for a human being to operate under a basic structure of self-interest that naturally translates into a general homocentric perspective. The result is less a function of fear than it is an expression of survival.

I do agree that religion harbors the inimical ability to increase and justify already over-extended homocentric behaviors and attitudes, though this observation holds true for many philosophical ideals.

Ethos

It is true that all humans are, not surprisingly, homocentric. However, with fundamentalists and the like, homocentrism gets in the way of rational thought. This is certainly not true for all of humanity. You aren't really serving self-interest by defending outrageous biblical mythology despite the fact that it escapes reason. Not in the sense that believing such has no effect on your welfare.

EDIT: Didn't read the last paragraph. I agree. Religious fundamentalism just happens to be one such ideal. ;)

[Sauniere]

Some quotes that I think can shed some light on this subject.

“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe”

“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”

We are the product of 4.5 billion years of fortuitous, slow biological evolution. There is no reason to think that the evolutionary process has stopped. Man is a transitional animal. He is not the climax of creation.

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.

Dr. Carl Sagan quotes (American Astronomer, Writer and Scientist, 1934-1996)


I think it is the last quote above that really gets Creationists' knickers in a twist.

no offense, but based on your PQ, I would think you agree with these creationists people... :D

It is amazing how easily one can generate multiple responses here by posting anything regarding evolution v. creationism.

WS is an interesting place, mostly lower-left quandranters, but a number of VERY vocal upper right posters. Those who support Biblical falacy, and taut creationism, anti-abortion, and think Bush walks on water.

[Strel]

no offense, but based on your PQ, I would think you agree with these creationists people... :D

It is amazing how easily one can generate multiple responses here by posting anything regarding evolution v. creationism.

WS is an interesting place, mostly lower-left quandranters, but a number of VERY vocal upper right posters. Those who support Biblical falacy, and taut creationism, anti-abortion, and think Bush walks on water.

Now that would be pigeonholing, wouldn't it?

I have often said I don't particularly have a problem with conservatives per se. Just wackos and fundamentalists - of whatever stripe.

[Meek Heir]

So neo? Are you willing to admit that the Earth is not "special" in the sense of providing life?

Even ignoring all the possible non carbon based life, In this galaxy alone there are many yellow stars not unlike our sun. There is no evidence that planets like earth (in position and size) are not common around such stars. In our galaxy alone there is a good chance of other carbon based life. Factor in all the other galaxies and you have what amounts to a guarantee. Certainly my assertion that there is life in the universe not on Earth is more likely then yours that there isn't.

But all that aside. What is so special about life? Or sentience? In relation to the cosmos (you know, that thing Sagan was talking about) we are incredibly brief and have had no affect on anything outside of our solar system. We have not had any effect on 99.99999999999999% of the matter or energy in the universe. Why do you think we are special?

[neo of the mind]

So neo? Are you willing to admit that the Earth is not "special" in the sense of providing life?

Even ignoring all the possible non carbon based life, In this galaxy alone there are many yellow stars not unlike our sun. There is no evidence that planets like earth (in position and size) are not common around such stars. In our galaxy alone there is a good chance of other carbon based life. Factor in all the other galaxies and you have what amounts to a guarantee. Certainly my assertion that there is life in the universe not on Earth is more likely then yours that there isn't.

But all that aside. What is so special about life? Or sentience? In relation to the cosmos (you know, that thing Sagan was talking about) we are incredibly brief and have had no affect on anything outside of our solar system. We have not had any effect on 99.99999999999999% of the matter or energy in the universe. Why do you think we are special?

Because of the fact that we are discussing that we are special and the other 99.99999999999% of said matter or energy in the universe is not.

[brainpan]

Because of the fact that we are discussing that we are special and the other 99.99999999999% of said matter or energy in the universe is not.The meaning of "special," in the context of this discussion, isn't intuitive. I'll do my best to define it for you.

The logic of this discussion is, or should be, guided by probability theory. In terms of probability, "special" defines results that are much less likely than others.

As an analogy, let's say you pick a random card from a deck of 52, hoping that you will pick the queen of spades. If you succeed, then that card is fairly special. As a comparison, let's say you a dealt a random card from a deck of 52, except this time you have no preference. In this instance, receiving the queen of spades is not special.

I apologize if you already understood this concept and other's use of "special" in this discussion. It's important that everyone has a clear knowledge of these things as a starting point, and that none of us play fast and loose with definitions.

I'll get back to you soon with some basic probability theory that will help to demonstrate why TAP (Theistic Anthropic Principle) is logically unsound.

[Meek Heir]

Because of the fact that we are discussing that we are special and the other 99.99999999999% of said matter or energy in the universe is not.

Special how? Sagan points out that when you look at the entire universe, Earth is not important. Irregardless of what happens to Earth everything else in the universe is unaffected. Do you dispute that?

Why is Earth "special?"

[Strel]

This argument made a lot more sense when we all thought we were the only planet/solar system in existence.

Now it is just plain silly. There is other life out there. Probability mandates it.

[sub_zer0]

This argument made a lot more sense when we all thought we were the only planet/solar system in existence.

Now it is just plain silly. There is other life out there. Probability mandates it.

No, your silly because even though we haven't found life, you believe it. Just like we haven't witnessed primate to man evolution but you believe it, I guess as well..

[JoeR]

No, your silly because even though we haven't found life, you believe it.

Based on probability

Just like we haven't witnessed primate to man evolution

Because we are primates, but I'll go ahead and assume you mean us and other apes sharing a common ancestor. You can't physically witness something that takes place over billions of years, but you can put the pieces together, in the same way that a crime scene can be put together after the fact through forensics - or do you reject that science too?

[Strel]

No, your silly because even though we haven't found life, you believe it. Just like we haven't witnessed primate to man evolution but you believe it, I guess as well..


I don't "believe" it. I understand the probabilities involved. It is EXTREMELY unlikely that we are the only sentient life forms in the Universe.

As for your "witnessing" the event you cite, you again expose your exceptional ignorance of science, the same science which you have the arrogance to dispute.

[neo of the mind]

I don't "believe" it. I understand the probabilities involved. It is EXTREMELY unlikely that we are the only sentient life forms in the Universe.

As for your "witnessing" the event you cite, you again expose your exceptional ignorance of science, the same science which you have the arrogance to dispute.


Just as it is EXTREMELY unlikely that everything came from nothing and nothing caused it to occur.

[Strel]

Just as it is EXTREMELY unlikely that everything came from nothing and nothing caused it to occur.


That is not at all what evolution claims.

Nor current cosmology.


Where do you get this stuff?

And even if "something" caused everything, the conclusion that this "something" was the God of the Bible does not logically follow.

[brainpan]

And even if "something" caused everything, the conclusion that this "something" was the God of the Bible does not logically follow.Whether something caused everything is not in dispute. Creationists like to refer to the guidance of natural laws as "pure chance." It appears to be emotionally satisfying to them.

[heel31ok]

This argument made a lot more sense when we all thought we were the only planet/solar system in existence.

Now it is just plain silly. There is other life out there. Probability mandates it.
not probable nor even logical to assume without any hint of probability that there is life out there.There is nothing to institute probability of other life out there.Only the imagination and a false sense of humility as not to be so arrogant as to believe we are the only ones.
now that does not dismiss the probability of life being out there in the future.
yes I believe we are special in that this is the beginning of populating the universe not the middle or end.We were not planted here to be harvested but will be the ones who sow the seeds of the universe. That is more of a probability.The probability of that being true cannot be denied.

[heel31ok]

Based on probability



Because we are primates, but I'll go ahead and assume you mean us and other apes sharing a common ancestor. You can't physically witness something that takes place over billions of years, but you can put the pieces together, in the same way that a crime scene can be put together after the fact through forensics - or do you reject that science too?
Thatis not science but assumption.Lumping forensics in with fairytale does not make the combination science.

[burntgorilla]

Thatis not science but assumption.Lumping forensics in with fairytale does not make the combination science.

Even if it is, it's still far better than anything you've come up with. I've noticed that all your attempts to prove creationism consist of attempting to smear evolution. I haven't actually seen any other valid scientific theories being put forward. What I have seen is ideas taken from the Bible and evidence pushed in to agree with it. Where is your alternative theory for radiometric dating, for example?

[steveksux]

Even if it is, it's still far better than anything you've come up with. I've noticed that all your attempts to prove creationism consist of attempting to smear evolution. I haven't actually seen any other valid scientific theories being put forward. What I have seen is ideas taken from the Bible and evidence pushed in to agree with it. Where is your alternative theory for radiometric dating, for example?You missed that one? Sin caused the rates of radioactive decay to change to make the fossils look older than thaty are. And the flood did also. I never got a satisfactory explanation why a big flood affects radioactive decay but smaller floods, or oceans do not. I think for that same period of time God made 2+2=5 also to further complicate things... :lol:

Randy

[burntgorilla]

You missed that one? Sin caused the rates of radioactive decay to change to make the fossils look older than thaty are. And the flood did also. I never got a satisfactory explanation why a big flood affects radioactive decay but smaller floods, or oceans do not. I think for that same period of time God made 2+2=5 also to further complicate things... :lol:

Randy

My God, how'd I miss that? That wraps everything up perfectly, doesn't it?

[FlyingGuineapig]

My God, how'd I miss that? That wraps everything up perfectly, doesn't it?
And the really amazing thing - rocks returned from the moon have radioactive dating of over 4 billion years! Obviously those rocks had to be effected by the Flood, which means that the flood waters were sooo high, they reached all the way up to the moon! :eek:

[Dangerrmouse]

And the really amazing thing - rocks returned from the moon have radioactive dating of over 4 billion years! Obviously those rocks had to be effected by the Flood, which means that the flood waters were sooo high, they reached all the way up to the moon! :eek:

Where else would the extra waters which poured in through the "windows" in the sky have come from? :rolleyes:

[sub_zer0]

You missed that one? Sin caused the rates of radioactive decay to change to make the fossils look older than thaty are. And the flood did also. I never got a satisfactory explanation why a big flood affects radioactive decay but smaller floods, or oceans do not. I think for that same period of time God made 2+2=5 also to further complicate things... :lol:

Randy


I gave you a webiste of a leader in this field, not my fault.

[sub_zer0]

Where else would the extra waters which poured in through the "windows" in the sky have come from? :rolleyes:

I guess you missed this...

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.

[Dangerrmouse]

Link??? You take this patent nonsense literally?

Never mind, I found it in Genesis...

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Another example of Sub's passing aquaintance with the truth, using a variant "interpretation" to score a point.

[sub_zer0]

Link??? You take this patent nonsense literally?

Never mind, I found it in Genesis...

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Another example of Sub's passing aquaintance with the truth, using a variant "interpretation" to score a point.

What variant interpretation? I just pasted what it says in the Bible.

[steveksux]

I gave you a webiste of a leader in this field, not my fault.Too bad the 'leaders" in your field are charlatans and hacks instead of scientists. I understand that's the best your side can do, it's not your fault.

Randy

[sub_zer0]

Too bad the 'leaders" in your field are charlatans and hacks instead of scientists. I understand that's the best your side can do, it's not your fault.

Randy

No, no, no Randy, this is the scientific leader I was talking about.

About John Baumgardner
John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D. Geophysics/Space Physics

Education:
B.S. Electrical Engineering, Texas Tech University - 1968
M.S. Electrical Engineering, Princeton University - 1970
M.S. Geophysics and Space Physics, UCLA - 1981
Ph.D. Geophysics and Space Physics, UCLA - 1983

Professional Experience:
Technical Staff Member/Scientist - Los Alamos National Laboratory, Theoretical Division, New Mexico (1984 - Present).

Member of Technical Staff and Consultant - Rockwell International, Rocketdyne Division, Laser Department (1978-1979, 1981-1984).

Graduate Research Assistant - University of California, Los Angeles, Dept. of Earth and Space Sciences (1979-1983).

Consultant - R & D Associates (1980-1981).

Project Officer - U. S. Air Force, Air Force Weapons Laboratory, Laser Division, Kirtland AFB, New Mexico (1971-1975).

[JoeR]

What do you know, a credible scientist. Now we can get to the part where his science has to actually be right.

[Meek Heir]

If I wanted a Physicist to lecture to me on biology I would call Hawking.

[Dangerrmouse]

What variant interpretation? I just pasted what it says in the Bible.

There you go being economical with the truth again! You pasted what it said in one variant of the bible, which "coincidentally" differed from the wording I used, which "coincidentally" suggested that I was in error.

[heel31ok]

You missed that one? Sin caused the rates of radioactive decay to change to make the fossils look older than thaty are. And the flood did also. I never got a satisfactory explanation why a big flood affects radioactive decay but smaller floods, or oceans do not. I think for that same period of time God made 2+2=5 also to further complicate things... :lol:

Randycher,
that math makes more sense than 0 x millions , or billions which always will equal zero,goose egg , zip, zilch, zowy, nuthin'.
Your assumptions about the "flood" once again cause you to err greatly in your conclusions.It is clear you do not know what the flood actually was.It was not a good wetting of the earth. You keep spouting about water and miss the point entirely which I have come to expect.
my 3 cents :D .

[heel31ok]

There you go being economical with the truth again! You pasted what it said in one variant of the bible, which "coincidentally" differed from the wording I used, which "coincidentally" suggested that I was in error.
Yes sub you are very economical with the truth. Using it wisely is a very economical thing. ;)

[Dangerrmouse]

Yes sub you are very economical with the truth. Using it wisely is a very economical thing. ;)


You must be saving your wit, but then it is a rare commodity.... ;)

[heel31ok]

Even if it is, it's still far better than anything you've come up with. I've noticed that all your attempts to prove creationism consist of attempting to smear evolution. I haven't actually seen any other valid scientific theories being put forward. What I have seen is ideas taken from the Bible and evidence pushed in to agree with it. Where is your alternative theory for radiometric dating, for example?
Creation proves itself over and over. Evolution is just a cheap wannabe.It is amusing to note that great amounts of time are needed to make evolution seem probable but it is the very passing of time which reveals it is in fact impossible.
my 3 cents :lol: .

[heel31ok]

You must be saving your wit, but then it is a rare commodity.... ;)
yes I am way past my wit's end.my 3 cents ;) you play to the level of your competition.

[Dangerrmouse]

Creation proves itself over and over. Evolution is just a cheap wannabe. ... my 3 cents :lol: .

What a mirror image world you inhabit. It must be lonely.

[heel31ok]

What a mirror image world you inhabit. It must be lonely.
It just gives me more time for reflection. my 3 cents :D

[Meek Heir]

cher,
that math makes more sense than 0 x millions , or billions which always will equal zero,goose egg , zip, zilch, zowy, nuthin'.

And now we discover that you are incapable of understanding math as well as science.

[steveksux]

No, no, no Randy, this is the scientific leader I was talking about.A leader? :lol: A leader in what field exactly? Science considers evolution to be the truth and creationism to be nonsense. Science considers the earth to be billions of years old. Both by a wide consensus with overwhelming evidence at their disposal. Apparently he's not much of a leader... LOL Seems no reputable scientists are following him. It appears the only ones following him are quacks and charlatans of the Creationist movement. Can you show me any peer reviewed scientific articles he has on these subjects that have survived peer reviews from real scientists, not creationst apologists that pass for scientists in your world? In real scientific journals, not creationist rags?

If that's the kind of leader you wish to follow, have at it.

Randy

[steveksux]

cher,
that math makes more sense than 0 x millions , or billions which always will equal zero,goose egg , zip, zilch, zowy, nuthin'.
Your assumptions about the "flood" once again cause you to err greatly in your conclusions.It is clear you do not know what the flood actually was.It was not a good wetting of the earth. You keep spouting about water and miss the point entirely which I have come to expect.
my 3 cents :D .
Well, be sure and enlighten us what the earth was flooded with besides ..... water... and while you're at it you never did mention any way that the flood would alter radioactive decay rates... :lol: But we're all ears... I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part, just forgot to address it with all the spittle flying and all... :lol: Lets see the biblical verses regarding radioactive decay rates. Any version of the bible will do, we won't be picky on which version you use for this one... :laughter:

Randy

[sub_zer0]

Well, be sure and enlighten us what the earth was flooded with besides ..... water... and while you're at it you never did mention any way that the flood would alter radioactive decay rates... :lol: But we're all ears... I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part, just forgot to address it with all the spittle flying and all... :lol: Lets see the biblical verses regarding radioactive decay rates. Any version of the bible will do, we won't be picky on which version you use for this one... :laughter:

Randy

The whole point is that they CHANGED! Radioactive decay rates changed, completely refuting the modern evolutionists perspective of a constant rate.

[sub_zer0]

Can you show me any peer reviewed scientific articles he has on these subjects that have survived peer reviews from real scientists, not creationst apologists that pass for scientists in your world? In real scientific journals, not creationist rags?

Randy

Scientific papers by John Baumgardner and his science from evolutionary or not creationists peer-reviewed journals.

D. R. Stegman, A.M. Jellinek, S. A. Zatman, J. R. Baumgardner, and M. A. Richards, "An early lunar core dynamo driven by thermochemical mantle convection," Nature, 421, 143-146, 2003.

D. A. Randall, T. D. Ringler, R. P. Heikes, P. Jones, and J. Baumgardner, "Climate Modeling with Spherical Geodesic Grids," Computing in Science and Engineering, 4(5), 32-41, 2002.

C. C. Reese, V. S. Solomatov, and J. R. Baumgardner, "Survival of impact-induced thermal anomalies in the Martian mantle," J. Geophys. Res.- Planets, 107(10), 5082-5092, 2002.

D. Majewski, D. Liermann, P. Prohl, B. Ritter, M. Buchhold, T. Hanisch, G. Paul, W. Wergen, and J. Baumgardner, "The global icosahedral-hexagonal grid point model GME: Operational version and high resolution tests," Mon. Wea. Rev., 130, 319-338, 2002. ( http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-document&issn=0027-0644&volume=130&issue=02&page=0319 )

M. A. Richards, W.-S. Yang, and J. R. Baumgardner, "The role of a low viscosity zone in stabilizing plate tectonics: implications for comparative terrestrial planetology," Geochem., Geophys., Geosys., 2, 2001.
( http://g-cubed.org/publicationsfinal/articles/2000GC000115/fs2000GC000115.html )

J. K. Dukowicz and J. R. Baumgardner, Incremental remapping as a transport/advection algorithm," J. Comp. Phys., 160, 318-335, 2000.
( http://sciserver.lanl.gov/pdflinks/03062609531420435--journals--00219991--v160i0001--318_iraata.pdf )

W.-S. Yang and J. R. Baumgardner, "Matrix-dependent transfer multigrid method for strongly variable viscosity infinite Prandtl number thermal convection," Geophys. and Astrophys. Fluid Dyn., 92, 151-195, 2000.

H. R. Wenk, J. R. Baumgardner, C. N. Tome, and R. Lebensohn, "A deformation model to explain anisotropy of the inner core," J. Geophys. Res., 105, 5663-5677, 2000.

M. A. Richards, H.-P. Bunge, C. Lithgow-Bertelloni, and J. R. Baumgardner, "Mantle convection and plate motion history: Toward general circulation models," History and Dynamics of Global Plate Motions, AGU Monograph Series, 1999.

M. A. Richards, H.-P. Bunge, Y. Ricard, and J.R. Baumgardner, "Polar wandering in mantle convection models," Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 1777-1780, 1999.

J. R. Baumgardner and W.-S. Yang, "Earthlike mantle convection from relatively simple rheology," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 80, (1999 Fall Meeting Supplement), F26, 1999.

M. A. Richards, W.-S. Yang, and J. R. Baumgardner, "The effectiveness of finite yield stress in obtaining platelike surface velocities," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 80, (1999 Fall Meeting Supplement), F962, 1999.

W.-S. Yang and J. R. Baumgardner, "Feasibility of the lava lamp model for the Earth's mantle," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 80, (1999 Fall Meeting Supplement), F941, 1999.

D. R. Stegman, M. A. Richards, and J. R. Baumgardner, "A parallel implementation of Lagrangian tracers in TERRA," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 80, (1999 Fall Meeting Supplement), F950, 1999.

C. C. Reese, V. S. Solomatov, and J. R. Baumgardner, "Impacts and the thermal evolution of Mars," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 80, (1999 Fall Meeting Supplement), F618, 1999.

John R. Baumgardner, Mark A. Richards, Woo-Sun Yang, and Carolina R. Lithgow-Bertelloni, "3-D Spherical Models of Plate Motion With Laterally Varying Rheology," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 79, (1998 Fall Meeting Supplement), F911, 1998.

H.-P. Bunge, M. A. Richards, C. Lithgow-Bertelloni, J. R. Baumgardner, S. P. Grand, and B. A. Romanowicz, "Time scales and heterogeneity structure in geodynamic earth models," Science, 280, 91-95, 1998.

Hans-Peter Bunge, Mark A. Richards, and John R. Baumgardner, "A sensitivity study of 3-D spherical mantle convection at 108 Rayleigh number: effects of depth-dependent viscosity, heating mode, and an endothermic phase change," J. Geophys. Res., 102, B6, 11991-12007, 1997.

John R. Baumgardner and Woo-Sun Yang, "A finite element multigrid formulation for variable viscosity in 3-D spherical geometry," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 77, (Fall Meeting Supplement), F750, 1996.

Hans-Peter Bunge, Mark A. Richards, and John R. Baumgardner, "The effect of depth-dependent viscosity on the planform of mantle convection," Nature, 379, 436-438, 1996.

Hans-Peter Bunge and John R. Baumgardner, "Mantle convection modeling on parallel virtual machines," Computers in Physics, 9, 207-215, 1995.

J. R. Baumgardner, "Thermal runaway in the mantle" (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 75, 687, 1994.

D. B. Kothe, J. R. Baumgardner, J. H. Cerutti, B. J. Daly, K. S. Holian, E. M. Kober, S. J. Mosso, J. W. Painter, R. D. Smith, and M. D. Torrey, "PAGOSA: A massively-parallel, multi-material hydrodynamics model for three-dimensional high-speed flow and high-rate material deformation," Proceedings of the 1993 Conference on High Performance Computing: Grand Challenges in Computer Simulation, Society for Computer Simulation, 9-14, 1993.

[sub_zer0]

And here is some more RANDY... good try, ;p. Creationists are real scientists.

John R. Baumgardner, "3-D numerical investigation of the mantle dynamics associated with the breakup of Pangea," in Flow and Creep in the Solar System: Observations, Modeling, and Theory, D. B. Stone and S. K. Runcorn, eds., NATO ASI Series C, Vol. 391, 207-224, 1993.

John Baumgardner, "3-D numerical investigation of the mantle dynamics associated with the breakup of Pangea," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 73, 1992 Fall Meeting Abstract Volume, 576-577, 1992.

M. A. Moreno, G. Schubert, J. Baumgardner, M. G. Kivelson, and D. A. Paige, "Io's volcanic and sublimation atmospheres," Icarus, 93, 63-81, 1991.

John R. Baumgardner, "Application of supercomputers to 3-D mantle convection," in The Physics of the Planets, S. K. Runcorn, ed., John Wiley and Sons, 199-231, 1988.

J. Baumgardner, M. A. Moreno, G. Schubert, and M. G. Kivelson, "Two classes of volcanic eruptions and their corresponding atmospheres on Io," Bull. Am. Astr. Assoc., 19(3), 856, 1987.

John R. Baumgardner, "Three-dimensional treatment of convective flow in the earth's mantle," J. Stat. Phys., 39, 501-511, 1985.

John R. Baumgardner and Paul O. Frederickson, "Icosahedral discretization of the two-sphere," SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 22, 1107-1115, 1985.

[Sgt Schultz]

Scientific papers by John Baumgardner and his science from evolutionary or not creationists peer-reviewed journals.

But if you look at them they are about geology; not one article debunking evolution and in support of creationism.

[sub_zer0]

But if you look at them they are about geology; not one article debunking evolution and in support of creationism.

That is because it isn't the goal of every creationists to do that within their papers. John Baumgardner is a creation scientist, so whatever he wrote is SUPPORTING CREATIONISM! Randy told me to post papers from him without relying on creationist peer-reviewed journals, and I have.

NOW, if you want some from him regarding creation technical journals and papers he has written, which I guess could be considered debunking evolution although he is merely providing science for creationism:

J. R. Baumgardner, "Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: The Physics Behind the Genesis Flood," in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism,
R. Ivey, Ed., Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, 2003.

J. R. Baumgardner, D. R. Humphreys, A. A. Snelling, and S. A. Austin, "Measurable 14C in fossilized organic materials: Confirming the young earth creation/Flood model," in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey, Ed., Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, 2003.

D. R. Humphreys, J. R. Baumgardner, S. A. Austin, and A. A., Snelling, "Helium diffusion rates support accelerated nuclear decay," in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey, Ed., Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA, 2003.

J. R. Baumgardner, "Catastrophic plate tectonics: the geophysical context of the Genesis Flood," "Dealing carefully with the data," and "A constructive quest for truth," all contributions to a "Forum on Catastrophic Plate Tectonics," Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 16, Vol. 1, 57-85, 2002.
( http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/16n1p57Forum.asp )

J. R. Baumgardner, "Distribution of Radioactive Isotopes in the Earth" in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young Earth Creation Research Initiative, Larry Vardiman, Andrew A. Snelling, and Eugene F. Chaffin, editors, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA, 49-94, 2000.

S. A. Austin, J. R. Baumgardner, D. R. Humphreys, A. A. Snelling, L. Vardiman, and K. P. Wise, "Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A Global Flood Model of Earth History," Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Technical Symposium Sessions, R. E. Walsh, ed., Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, 609-621, 1994.

J. R. Baumgardner, "Computer Modeling of the Large-Scale Tectonics Associated with the Genesis Flood," Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Technical Symposium Sessions, R. E. Walsh, ed., Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, 49-62, 1994.

J. R. Baumgardner, "Runaway Subduction as the Driving Mechanism for the Genesis Flood," Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Technical Symposium Sessions, R. E. Walsh, ed., Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, 63-75, 1994.

J. R. Baumgardner and D. W. Barnette, "Patterns of Ocean Circulation over the Continents During Noah's Flood," Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Technical Symposium Sessions, R. E. Walsh, ed., Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, 77-86, 1994.

[Dangerrmouse]

Which land masses disappeared forever in the "runaway subduction" ?

[Alvin T. Grey]

Which land masses disappeared forever in the "runaway subduction" ?
Atlantis.

[heel31ok]

A leader? :lol: A leader in what field exactly? Science considers evolution to be the truth and creationism to be nonsense. Science considers the earth to be billions of years old. Both by a wide consensus with overwhelming evidence at their disposal. Apparently he's not much of a leader... LOL Seems no reputable scientists are following him. It appears the only ones following him are quacks and charlatans of the Creationist movement. Can you show me any peer reviewed scientific articles he has on these subjects that have survived peer reviews from real scientists, not creationst apologists that pass for scientists in your world? In real scientific journals, not creationist rags?

If that's the kind of leader you wish to follow, have at it.

Randy
<<Edit Mod-trolling>> science does not consider or choose . people consider which is not the same . It is oppinion and assumption which is most certainly not science and which is certainly not science.
<<Edit Mod-trolling>> concensus is not science <<Edit Mod>>
my 3 cents :D

[heel31ok]

Well, be sure and enlighten us what the earth was flooded with besides ..... water... and while you're at it you never did mention any way that the flood would alter radioactive decay rates... :lol: But we're all ears... I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part, just forgot to address it with all the spittle flying and all... :lol: Lets see the biblical verses regarding radioactive decay rates. Any version of the bible will do, we won't be picky on which version you use for this one... :laughter:

Randy
<<Edit Mod-trolling>> my 3 cents :sorry:

[brainpan]

Just curious what everyone else thinks or heel's super trolling. Personally, I don't think we should be expected to put up with blatant sophistry like the above.

If you make an assertion, and are then asked for evidence, you shouldn't be allowed to make a barely legible excuse for not doing it. Either put up or shut up. I'm sensitive to this because heel recently pulled the same crap on me, telling me repeatedly "I already answered that" when I made a valid request for him to provide evidence for an assertion he made. Julierep pulled this stunt on Burntgorilla not too long ago as well. I'm sick of it.

I'm reporting this post, and I invite all who agree with me to do the same. This kind of behavior damages the forum, there is absolutely no doubt about it.

[Meek Heir]

Just curious what everyone else thinks or heel's super trolling. Personally, I don't think we should be expected to put up with blatant sophistry like the above.

If you make an assertion, and are then asked for evidence, you shouldn't be allowed to make a barely legible excuse for not doing it. Either put up or shut up. I'm sensitive to this because heel recently pulled the same crap on me, telling me repeatedly "I already answered that" when I made a valid request for him to provide evidence for an assertion he made. Julierep pulled this stunt on Burntgorilla not too long ago as well. I'm sick of it.

I'm reporting this post, and I invite all who agree with me to do the same. This kind of behavior damages the forum, there is absolutely no doubt about it.

I'm slightly distracted by the Chappelle show behind me, But I just want to know what the "cher"s are.

[Nuke the Oil]

This isn't something subjective!

The specialness I am referring to is the LOCATION of our planet, for without a special LOCATION around a SPECIAL star, could we have a SPECIAL planet that supports Life.

I don't know what type of mentality your trying to place on me, which I assume is negative, but I think your missing my point. In order for our planet to have life, it must be a certain distance away from a certain type of star. It has to be a certain size and have a certain revolution around it's axis and around the stars axis. If this is NOT true, then tell me why.

The logic here is faulty. You say that the Earth is special because it has all of the many conditions necessary to support (Earth)life. However, these "special conditions" conditions are necessary for our very existence. Of course Earth fulfills the conditions necessary for life. If it didn't you obviously wouldn't be here to ponder the fact. Life is what makes Earth special.

There are almost countless worlds in the universe, and with our current knowledge of extrasolar planets it seems that there are probably millions of planets in our galaxy alone that exist in the same temperature/radiation regions and gravity. (Furthermore we can't even say that these conditions are necessary for life in general - perhaps alien lifeforms live in different environments.)

[steveksux]

The logic here is faulty. You say that the Earth is special because it has all of the many conditions necessary to support (Earth)life. However, these "special conditions" conditions are necessary for our very existence. Of course Earth fulfills the conditions necessary for life. If it didn't you obviously wouldn't be here to ponder the fact. Life is what makes Earth special.

There are almost countless worlds in the universe, and with our current knowledge of extrasolar planets it seems that there are probably millions of planets in our galaxy alone that exist in the same temperature/radiation regions and gravity. (Furthermore we can't even say that these conditions are necessary for life in general - perhaps alien lifeforms live in different environments.)I liken the debate to lottery winners. The lottery winner thinks he's special. But the fact that there IS a winner is not that remarkable. Given enough lottery tickets sold, someone winning is pretty much unavoidable. Given enough galaxies, stars, planets, someone somewhere is going to hit the jackpot and develop life. And inhabitants of the planet that does will be amazed how special they are.

Randy

[sub_zer0]

The logic here is faulty. You say that the Earth is special because it has all of the many conditions necessary to support (Earth)life. However, these "special conditions" conditions are necessary for our very existence. Of course Earth fulfills the conditions necessary for life. If it didn't you obviously wouldn't be here to ponder the fact. Life is what makes Earth special.

That is his underlying point I believe.

There are almost countless worlds in the universe, and with our current knowledge of extrasolar planets it seems that there are probably millions of planets in our galaxy alone that exist in the same temperature/radiation regions and gravity. (Furthermore we can't even say that these conditions are necessary for life in general - perhaps alien lifeforms live in different environments.)

Speculation....

[sub_zer0]

Well, be sure and enlighten us what the earth was flooded with besides ..... water... and while you're at it you never did mention any way that the flood would alter radioactive decay rates... :lol: But we're all ears... I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part, just forgot to address it with all the spittle flying and all... :lol: Lets see the biblical verses regarding radioactive decay rates. Any version of the bible will do, we won't be picky on which version you use for this one... :laughter:

Randy

Important to note that my main point was that the current evolutionary dogma about radioactive dates not changing is severely flawed.

Try this website: http://www.halos.com/book/ctm-02-a.htm

However, when asking about these changes, keep in mind it is the current thought that is aligned with you that decay rates haven't changed. What is YOUR evidence of this?

[nogoodname90]

Cant u just belive god invented evolution or something like that?

[JoeR]

evolutionary dogma

radioactive dates


How are radioactive decay rates a part of "evolutionary dogma"?

[sub_zer0]

How are radioactive decay rates a part of "evolutionary dogma"?

Because they think they haven't changed... I thought I went over this?

[FlyingGuineapig]

How are radioactive decay rates a part of "evolutionary dogma"?
It's tough for the Creationists to understand one scientific theory, much less several - so the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution all get lumped into one. Anything evidence which supports these (speed of light, radioactive decay, fossils, ice layers, genetics, moon landings, DNA) is also tainted - all part of a vast Darwinian conspiracy to keep Creationists down.

The problem, of course, is that science is pretty entwined with it's various disciplines - that's why the theory of evolution has endured while other hypothesis haven't - it explains biological change for the past few billion years, as well as the changes being seen today, and predicts what we'll see in the future (in a limited sense), and meshes with all other evidence seen across